The UN Migration Pact, a wishlist detached from reality. Convolutedly written, difficult to read and even more difficult to understand, except for one claim: migration is good. It is always good, and should never be restricted. Why?
No answer is given. The doubters are assured that it is just a consensus paper, not legally binding. Officially that might be the case, but it IS binding, in a political and moral sense. That can have legal consequences. That would mean anyone can make a claim based on the Pact and take their case to court. What judge would date make a decision against the consensus? It comes from the UN.
Additionally, it is noted in the pact that national laws should be taken into account, but also encouraged that these national laws be adapted according to the interests of the UN.
Then there’s the matter of “information”. There should be an open, fact-based discussion concerning this matter, but I ask how? If the results are already established, the perception to be created should be more realistic, humane and more constructive. The media should be involved in steering the immigration. It says that – literally. And those who don’t play along, they will have their financial support taken away. That’s written in there too!
There’s one thing that’s not explained in the Pact. If immigration is so great, then why does it require a controlled information campaign or such a pact?